
Environmental Scan 2017 By the ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee March 2017 Association of College and Research Libraries Telephone: (800) 545-2433, ext. 2523 American Library Association Fax: (312) 280-2520 50 E. Huron St. E-mail: [email protected] Chicago, IL 60611-2795 Web: www.acrl.org 2 ACRL 2017 Environmental Scan Introduction Every other year the ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee publishes a scan of the higher education environment with a focus on implications for academic libraries. The 2017 Environmental Scan builds on last year’s Top Trends in Academic Libraries1 and the 2015 Environmental Scan,2 which discussed other notable topics of interest to the academic librarian community, including student success measurements and open educational resources. Therefore, we have chosen not to repeat those topics in this year’s data. The topics discussed and reviewed in this year’s Environmental Scan include higher education funding and costs, enrollment trends within higher education, evidence-based decision making in academic libraries, information literacy issues, competency-based education, digital preservation, open science, open data, curating research data, scholarly communication issues, open access and collection management trends, collection assessment and evaluation trends, research evaluation and metrics, planning and designing library spaces, and social justice issues related to libraries and higher education. Higher Education Funding The data collected for the Grapevine report on state fiscal support for higher education “show an overall 4.1% increase in state fiscal support for higher education from Fiscal Year 2015 (FY15) to Fiscal Year 2016 (FY16).”3 However, that modest increase comes after many years of cuts following the 2008 recession. According to The Pew Charitable Trusts’ data, while federal spending on higher education has increased in recent years, state spending on public higher education has decreased since the Great Recession.4 The changing balance affects the operation of institutions of higher education, since the “federal government mostly provides financial assistance to individual students and funds specific research projects, while states typically fund the general operations of public institutions.”5 Analysis compiled for the Young Invincibles’ 2016 State Report Cards “shows that states have cut per student spending by 21 percent between fiscal years 2008 1 ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee, “2016 Top Trends in Academic Libraries: A Review of the Trends and Issues Affecting Academic Libraries in Higher Education,” College & Research Libraries News 77, no. 6 (June 1, 2016): 274–81, http://crln.acrl.org/content/77/6/274. 2 ACRL Research Planning and Review Committee, “Environmental Scan 2015” (Chicago, IL: Association of College & Research Libraries, March 2015), http://www.ala.org/acrl/sites/ala.org.acrl/files/content/publications/whitepapers/EnvironmentalScan15.pdf. 3 “Annual Grapevine Compilation of State Fiscal Support for Higher Education Partial Results for Fiscal Year 2015-2016” (Center for the Study of Education Policy at Illinois State University and the State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEO), 2016), https://education.illinoisstate.edu/grapevine/Grapevine_FY16_Press_Release.pdf. 4 “Federal and State Funding of Higher Education: A Changing Landscape” (Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts, June 2015), 1. 5 Ibid., 3. 3 through 2014. While many states have begun to reinvest in the past few years, only two states spend as much as they did before the recession (Alaska and North Dakota).”6 Alongside this development, “tuition and fees at both 4-year and 2-year institutions rose 28 percent since the last recession.”7 A recent study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CPBB) describes a similar educational environment, where “states have slashed higher education funding” and “the price of attending public colleges has risen significantly faster than the growth in median income.8 Budgets for higher education institutions are still below pre-recession levels, tuition continues to rise, and enrollment continues to rise. However, “because tuition increases have not fully compensated for the loss of state funding, and because most public schools do not have significant endowments or other sources of funding, many public colleges and universities have simultaneously reduced course offerings, student services, and other campus amenities,”9 as well as increasing the student-to- faculty ratio on average nationwide.”10 Increasingly, costs are shifted to the students, harming especially low-income students. Federal grants have increased, but since they do not cover the full cost of college, including room and board, students still borrow, increasing both the number of students in debt and the size of the average debt.11 Pew and the CPBB both have recommendations to improve the situation, but all involve spending more money on higher education, even though “nearly every state has shifted costs to students over the last 25 years.”12 Implications Increasing enrollments and stagnant budgets will undoubtedly affect budgeting and staffing decisions in many public colleges and universities. Further cuts to library budgets could affect everything from collections budgets or lead to academic libraries hiring more part-time workers, as many colleges have done via adjunct faculty. Libraries could experience downward pressure on starting salaries and the replacement of retiring and resigning staff with entry-level librarians and paraprofessional staff. Increasing student-to-faculty ratios could provide opportunities for libraries to market instructional and research services to faculty who might welcome the assistance in light of increasing workloads. 6 “2016 State Report Cards” (Washington, DC: Young Invincibles Student Impact Project, January 2016), 6, http://younginvincibles.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/YI-State-Report-Cards-2016.pdf. 7 Ibid., 7. 8 Michael Mitchell, Michael Leachman, and Kathleen Masterson, “Funding Down, Tuition Up State Cuts to Higher Education Threaten Quality and Affordability at Public Colleges” (Washingtion, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, August 15, 2016), 1, http://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/5-19- 16sfp.pdf. 9 Ibid., 14. 10 Ibid., 15. 11 Ibid., 16–17. 12 Ibid., 16. 4 Higher Education Cost Trends in Tuition and Fee Rates The 2016 presidential election brought the cost of higher education to the forefront of many Americans’ minds as the merit and plausibility free college tuition and rising student debt become platform issues. According to The College Board’s Trends in College Pricing 2016, “the rate of growth of published tuition and fees is not accelerating over time.”13 Rather, published tuition rates increased slightly less in 2016-17 than the year before, and they have shown a slower rate of increase between 2006-07 and 2016-17 than was seen for two decades prior. The recession period between 2008-09 and 2012-13 saw a 28% increase in average tuition and fees, but “as the economy has recovered, state and local per-student appropriations have risen and tuition increases have slowed considerably.”14 However, the rate of increase remains higher than inflation and outpaces growth in incomes, which may contribute to greater affordability concerns for enrolling students and their families.15 The latest Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) provisional data, published in November 2016, shows that tuition and fees for “full-time, first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates” has shown a general trend of increase between the 2013-14 and 2015-16 academic years.16 Although for-profit institutions saw a very slight decrease (less than 1%), a price increase of about 4% was the norm among public and private nonprofit institutions, for both in- state and out-of-state students.17 Prices for in-district students—that is, “a student who lives in the locality surrounding the institution, such as county”18—were slightly lower than in-state prices at 4-year institutions, but rose by the same percentage as in-state prices. At 2-year institutions, however, the difference was more noticeable: prices for in- district students only rose by 4.9%, versus a 5.4% increase in prices for in-state students. More recent data on published tuition and fees charges for 2016-17 are available from The College Board’s Annual Survey of Colleges. For full-time, in-state undergraduates, The College Board’s data show an average price of $9,650 at public 4-year institutions and $3,520 at public 2-year institutions. Compared to the same data reported for 2015-16, 13 The College Board, Trends in College Pricing 2016, (2016), 7, accessed January 2, 2016, at http://trends.collegeboard.org. 14 The College Board, 24. 15 The College Board, 3. 16 Scott A. Ginder, Janice E. Kelly-Reid, and Farrah B. Mann, Postsecondary Institutions and Cost of Attendance in 2015-16; Degrees and Other Awards Conferred, 2014-15; and 12-Month Enrollment, 2014- 15: First Look (Provisional Data) (NCES 2016-112rev), U.S. Department of Education, (Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, 2016), 3, accessed January 2, 2016, at https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2016112rev. 17 More specifically, the average full-time, in-state price at 4-year public institutions rose by 4.1% from $7,819 (2013-14) to $8,141 (2015-16), while the average full-time, in-state price at 2-year public institutions rose a bit more, by 5.4%, from
Details
-
File Typepdf
-
Upload Time-
-
Content LanguagesEnglish
-
Upload UserAnonymous/Not logged-in
-
File Pages54 Page
-
File Size-